58 replies to this topic

[Ron Alan]

 

 

It's been suggested racers don't take full advantage of rule changes and therefore you can't really determine it's potential impact. IMO this is where the hung juries emerge.

Add 50lbs...take out your plate. Full advantage it would seem is a no brainier here?

 

In all fairness to the passionate rules makers...many thought the power jump on these cars when unrestricted would be more than has materialized. Some may have thought the 50lbs was not enough! In other words, I feel they truly felt this change was going to improve the cars. But from everything I have seen the change simply went sideways...some better, some worse. Given a choice I would go back to a lighter restricted car

Again this is just my situation. For the weight this car now runs it needs to be at least 2-3hp more than a NB to make up for the less than optimal power and fuel curve as well as the aero and the front sub-frame geometry(had to throw that one in )

 

But if anyone wants a solid fast car to spin around in at the runoffs...give me a shout

[Johnny D]

Not really sure what the fix is you're asking for?

Did you want no RP and 25lbs instead of 50?

or an RP and something?

Need/want turn signal delete, cold air intake?

96-97 ECU?

headers ground like the 1.6?

Marc's thoughts and the peanut gallery of 3 car?

J~

[tylerbrown]

Tyler, Isn't your NB legal in T4 with no plate?  You already have that place to pull the plate and go fast.

Just kidding around. I do have to say I feel for NA guys as not as many people carry as much NA spares as not as many people run them ..

[Jamz14]

Johnny, you miss the point too. The fix I want is a process and procedural fix. But I'll bite.

Like Ron, I want the car back to where it was.

Jim, I'm one of those old guys just running cars. So if this is your empirical process then you have at least two people talking here that want the car back the way it was. There is at least 1 other offline that want the car back to the way it was. That is 3 old guys that want it the way it was. So if clicky anecdotal evidence is the process then so be it. Use it and put the car back to the way it was. At the very least take the weight off and apease the majority of old guys. And no one is building and driving these so you wouldn't be hurting anyone.

But yes , I wanted someone to admit that there was no follow up plan to review what was done. So thank you for having the brass to admit it.

But I completely disagree that a plan was not possible. Just look at the good work that SMAC, Mazda, Todd Lamb, others, did with the shock change. Could they completely mitigate every x factor? No, but they did everything in their power to do so. I am not asking for that level of analysis. But I am asking for at least some legitimate thought put into it in advance of what success or failure would look like when you mess around with other old guys cars. I get why people don't care about cars they don't drive. But, if you are not going to care about what you do enough to think about what you did afterwards, please don't care enough to fiddle with it in the first place. It was my car that was affected not yours.

Now do I really think people don't care about others cars even though they don't drive them? No, I think the people that volunteer their time and effort on these things care deeply. I am part of that volunteer group. What i am asking for is so simple and key to a process that can work with the situation as you described. Just one small , tiny change that goes a long ways to help people have confidence in you/us/them: have at least an idea what you are looking for in what is success or failure when you make a change. This request is no different than something you and all the others responsible for changes have advised every driver here what they should be doing and that is: be willing to make a change to your car setup, go out and test the changes. Come back and analyse the change by looking at the times and ignore what your ass is telling you.

I am not and have not doubted the credentials of the guy you are holding up as evidence of a positive change. Maybe there are others that are being silent that also like the changes. If so and the process is anecdotal and majority rules, then I will shut up and accept the mob decision. But so far there are two voices saying the car is sideways at best and the one guy being used as evidence not saying anything here at least.

In the years I have been watching this process in action I have never seen two people ever ask to have their restrictor plates put back on the car. Now either these two people are insane (a strong possibility for both of them), or they feel strongly that the weight that was put on the car had a bigger affect than people thought. IMO the car was turned from a sweet handling little car into a nb. IMO there is a reason there was a conscious effort at Mazda to take the new chassis back to what the na was. There is a reason that young talented karters that are put in a na chassis do well even though they may be disadvantaged by other characteristics of the car. That same reason may be what is causing what you see happening with a very experienced and talented driver like Marc. There was something special about the feel of the na 1.8 IMO. It is now muted IMO. The goal was to improve the car, not take away what made it special. There are so few of the late model na 1.8 . I am asking that we allow them to take advantage of the only thing that made them what they were. They weren't overdogs before, they certainly aren't now. Let them at least be the joy they were before to drive.

But I am done and accept the opinion of one of the patrons of the class that no changes are coming. Right now my na is mothballed for the time being and others have left. Time to put away the nostalgia and move on. Even though you had to read a bit more than you like, if you look back, I have certainly written and complained less than the 1.6 crowd. So I will walk away happy and I ask that you walk away happy too in that you had to tolerate a lot less before capitulation of either side.

[Bench Racer]

James, I have forgotten the results posted by Tom Sager (not a youngster), but as I recall they were positive for the NA1.8 after the changes. Oh, and you do more words in one post than any 1.6er did in six posts.

[Danny Steyn]

Best dyno results in terms of HP ever seen on a Rossini Dyno are from the new spec NA1.8 - more than 3 more than I ever had on any of my 99's and more than 5 more than I have ever had on any of my VVT's. Just sayin 

 

That car, driven at VIR, when we overlaid the acceleration (Velocity vs. Distance) trace, made my VVT look absolutely pedestrian. 

 

Bye the way, greetings from ZAMBIA!!!

[Johnny D]

[Johnny D]

Johnny, you miss the point too. The fix I want is a process and procedural fix. But I'll bite.

 
Just playing along, very concerned right now...
 

Well it's mid season and the forum is a bit slow right now so I thought I would check in on how the NA 1.8 BOP change analysis is going?
Did the changes improve the car, increase its competitiveness, cause a change in the number on the podium? Anything? Many have abandoned the car out west, how goes it in the east?

[Jamz14]

Best dyno results in terms of HP ever seen on a Rossini Dyno are from the new spec NA1.8 - more than 3 more than I ever had on any of my 99's and more than 5 more than I have ever had on any of my VVT's. Just sayin 
 
That car, driven at VIR, when we overlaid the acceleration (Velocity vs. Distance) trace, made my VVT look absolutely pedestrian. 
 
Bye the way, greetings from ZAMBIA!!!

This is pure bullshit. If true people would be flocking to the car. I don't doubt what you saw on the dyno, the bullshit part is that the change in plate is the cause. So when are you building one Danny? You of all people can't tolerate driving your now underdog to a 97 vvt. Put the old plate in the na you are talking about and dyno. Pull the plate and dyno. Tell us what the total gain in hp you see. Then all of us will do the same. You don't need a top prep car to do this test. You don't need to be on the same dyno as you. All we need to know is what was your relative hp change. Then I will see what my relative change is.

What you are implying is that a top prep na 1.8 will now make 133 to 135 hp. Bullshit.And if any of you saw those numbers on the dyno at the track, you would be pulling the car apart down to the last bolt. But please discuss with Xavier so he can change the dyno guidelines in the NASA rules to reflect the new reality of 135 hp na 1.8s.

[Jamz14]

And bench. You are right. But seeing how you write 1000s of post, at 6 to 1 you still blow way more air than me. But maybe I'll catch up seeing how you stay pretty quiet now that you got what you wanted.

[Tom Sager]

This is pure bullshit. If true people would be flocking to the car. I don't doubt what you saw on the dyno, the bullshit part is that the change in plate is the cause. So when are you building one Danny? You of all people can't tolerate driving your now underdog to a 97 vvt. Put the old plate in the na you are talking about and dyno. Pull the plate and dyno. Tell us what the total gain in hp you see. Then all of us will do the same. You don't need a top prep car to do this test. You don't need to be on the same dyno as you. All we need to know is what was your relative hp change. Then I will see what my relative change is.

What you are implying is that a top prep na 1.8 will now make 133 to 135 hp. Bullshit.And if any of you saw those numbers on the dyno at the track, you would be pulling the car apart down to the last bolt. But please discuss with Xavier so he can change the dyno guidelines in the NASA rules to reflect the new reality of 135 hp na 1.8s.

 

A top flight NA1.8 I believe will make a bit more peak power than a top flight '99 but it is mostly at the tippy top of the range.  At the lower portion of the range in which we race the '99 will make a bit more power and torque and in the middle the 2 cars are pretty comparable from what I've seen.  I don't have the numbers in front of me but this is what I recall and have spent a fair amount of time on this.  Power-wise I think the 2 cars are pretty darned comparable now.  The VVT still enjoys more lower end punch but the NA 1.8 will definitely make more from about 6000 and up if memory serves me correctly.  Power-wise I think the gap that existed with the plate on the NA1.8 has been solved.  There is still an argument that at 2400 pounds with the older front suspension the car should be allowed to update or have a slight weight break but I'm not making that argument today .

 

I have not raced my '95 in almost 2 years and never yet with it plate-less as I had an engine problem first time and first session out in 2017.  It seems the crankshaft couldn't handle the extra 5 horsepower.  Hope to get it out somewhere yet this year as I've had a number of setbacks getting the car together and haven't raced the '01 much this year either.  Hell last time out I wasn't even racing.  It seemed more like I was just driving around like a lost soul in a Home Depot looking for something and getting in everyone's way. 

[Jamz14]

Tom, your data seems reasonable and no argument from me.

If the vvt has more lower end punch, and it should, either Danny is getting out of the corner slower than who ever he compared acceleration curves with, our Danny is so good, he never drives the car at the lower end where the punch is. At least I think those are the two options are. IMO, if he is so good that he always has the car spun up, then I don't see how he could be seeing what he is reporting seeing. The acceleration differences between the two would be buried in the noise.

[Ron Alan]

Because I want to make sure my thoughts are not misunderstood and don't want James to fall head first into to any BS...let me clarify my non-scientific thoughts and agree with some things that have been said...

 

I believe Danny's post 100%...because I have seen the same thing! When I had that motor for a day that was 2-3 more HP than most NB's(129 west coast dyno with big torque))the on track data was impressive! I saw top speeds at certain corners I had never seen given the same conditions! But as I posted before, this was short lived and when the motor was repaired it is back to good NB power. With the exact same peak power and weight...the NB is better than the NA IMO. There are several other NA drivers in the our region who have numbers closer to that 130 than 125 so I know this motor can make the power. 

 

BUT...here is the kicker and what James has eluded to. These same motors restricted should in theory only be off by 3+/-. At 126hp and 2350 the car is still top flight and capable of winning...and it was before the change. But other than a few west coast guys most had thrown in the towel on this car. If Mark D car had not found its unfortunate end he would still be in it IMO...for sure at Sonoma!

 

To repeat what I and others have said...peak HP is great...but it is the off peak(range/curve)that we race in! The change to improve the car did not hurt it...but any obvious upside has just not realized IMO. All things being equal I would always like to run less weight on a car...but for now I will continue how the current rules are laid out. Dropping back 20-25lbs would be great but I'm not holding my breath

 

Lastly...this car, like the 1.6, is good at certain tracks. If you expect to win at a 5th gear/high speed track, you will be disappointed(one caveat being a very good partner and no mistakes!).

 

James asked so I have shared my info...but honestly i'm not complaining...we have not gone backwards. I must admit I like not pulling my restrictor in tech...the one upside!

[Danica Davison]

bahahah this is the kind of drama I want to see. I almost commented but will hold on to it for now. Carry on

[Mike Tesch]

A top flight NA1.8 I believe will make a bit more peak power than a top flight '99 but it is mostly at the tippy top of the range.  At the lower portion of the range in which we race the '99 will make a bit more power and torque and in the middle the 2 cars are pretty comparable from what I've seen.  I don't have the numbers in front of me but this is what I recall and have spent a fair amount of time on this.  Power-wise I think the 2 cars are pretty darned comparable now.  The VVT still enjoys more lower end punch but the NA 1.8 will definitely make more from about 6000 and up if memory serves me correctly.  Power-wise I think the gap that existed with the plate on the NA1.8 has been solved.  There is still an argument that at 2400 pounds with the older front suspension the car should be allowed to update or have a slight weight break but I'm not making that argument today .

 

I have not raced my '95 in almost 2 years and never yet with it plate-less as I had an engine problem first time and first session out in 2017.  It seems the crankshaft couldn't handle the extra 5 horsepower.  Hope to get it out somewhere yet this year as I've had a number of setbacks getting the car together and haven't raced the '01 much this year either.  Hell last time out I wasn't even racing.  It seemed more like I was just driving around like a lost soul in a Home Depot looking for something and getting in everyone's way. 

 

 

I have no comment.

[Jamz14]

So Ron, to be clear, you are saying that a good unrestricted na 1.8 will make 133 to 135 hp?

[Tom Sager]

I have no comment.

 

Well that in itself is a comment. 

[Tom Sager]

Tom, your data seems reasonable and no argument from me.

If the vvt has more lower end punch, and it should, either Danny is getting out of the corner slower than who ever he compared acceleration curves with, our Danny is so good, he never drives the car at the lower end where the punch is. At least I think those are the two options are. IMO, if he is so good that he always has the car spun up, then I don't see how he could be seeing what he is reporting seeing. The acceleration differences between the two would be buried in the noise.

 

Somewhat track dependent.  I've never been to Pitt but looking at videos, there are a lot of higher RPM sections, good for an NA1.8.  A track like Blackhawk or Mid-Ohio favors torque. 

[Tom Sager]

I have no comment.

 

Oh and the Brewers still trail the Cubs. 

[speedengineer]

If you all agree on a representative dyno curve for a 1.8NA and a 99, I will run the two through my lap simulation software.  Math and physics rarely lie.  All this "I feel" and "I think" commentary isn't going to bring us to a meaningful conclusion.

In lieu of somebody putting the same talented driver in highly prepped examples of both a 1.8NA and an NB in back to back sessions, we can use simulation to determine the effect of engine output on lap time. It is likely more accurate than you can measure at the track, with so many variables that can't be accounted for.

So, if you agree on some dyno curves, I'll run the sim.  It needs to be a "TOP Effort" dyno curve for each, because rule sets and parity aren't designed around the average car, but around a car's potential performance. Pick a track:  Mid Ohio?  Road Atlanta?  VIR?  Pitt Race?  Miller?